Ludington City Council 11-25-2013: Serving Public Servants

[XLFD]

 

Perhaps the most interesting thing that happened at this meeting was the service of process performed on seven Ludington public servants, something that was not on the agenda, but presaged in the Ludington Torch.  Mayor Henderson and all seven councilors were present at this properly posted open meeting of the city council where the main order of business was to be the consideration of a tax abatement for House of Flavors for recently constructed space and equipment. 

 

The council set a budget public hearing for the next meeting, December 2, without saying anything about the budget.  City Manager John Shay and crew have once again decided to ignore the Ludington City Charter Section 8.2:  "The City Manager shall prepare for Council a budget proposal and an accompanying message for the next fiscal year, which shall be presented to the City Council for its approval no later than the first Council meeting in November."  That was the previous meeting.

Can the public look and see what's in the budget?  Had you went to the City Hall on Tuesday or Wednesday, you might have got a peek; I don't know.  But it is not available on the website as of the last couple of days, nor would one think it will become available on-line over the weekend.  So not only will you be in the dark about your City's budget plans, a month later than our charter dictates the City Manager's message and budget should be publicly available, but also you won't be able to see it until the day of the public hearing, if that. 

Section 8.5 of the City Charter also dictates the city council puts a budget hearing notice in the paper of local record (COLDNews) at least two weeks before the hearing and allow the public to peruse the budget.  I do not read the local rag from cover to cover, but I have not noticed this notice, nor was the public ever invited to check it out at this meeting.  Transparency and following the city charter, Ludington City Hall style. 

 

The more mundane matters of setting the clerk and treasurer salaries, applying for a SAW grant for sewer and wastewater maintenance and upgrades, and approving a contract for computer support were also resolved.  The latter matter was of most interest to those who wonder about the questionable bidding methods our city often uses for choosing contractors; they chose the second lowest bidder without a clear explanation of why they overlooked the low bid.  When one puts something up for bid with standard guidelines for all bidders, the low bid should not be dismissed without some clear reason why. 

 

Bidding also was at the main gist of my arguments in my five minutes of public comment.  After touching on the lawsuit whose summons and complaint they would be served just after the meeting's adjournment, I discussed the matter of 808 East Danaher again, a city property the City acquired after using their special privilege to avoid the bidding process of a public auction.  They then demolished the house and made a deal to give half the property to the neighbors-- all without a stated public purpose for the use of public funds to do so.  The City Attorney tries to defend this, but does so poorly, at the end of the meeting.

 

The last point I made, yet never completed was the lack of fair bidding for the painting/maintenance of the Brye Road water tank.  It wasn't fair to have the winning company, USM design the bid back in September 2012, almost a year before they submitted the exact same bid apparently.  It was for the same amount they stated last year. 

The big latent scandal in this bid, however, was that when the City of Ludington did put out a request for proposal (RFP) for the work, they specified that the tanks would be painted in 2014 and in the last year of the contract.  When the City signed a contract with USM last month after winning approval for having a lower bid, the contract had no understanding that a re-painting would happen until after the contract had expired.  This was not the understanding in the RFP that the City put out this summer. 

The other company that bid factored in what the cost of a second paint job would entail, including effects of inflation, just like the RFP insisted on.  Without the second painting and the other unnecessary perks they had to offer, the other company would likely have submitted a bid more than $200,000 less than USM's offer.   The speech began at 2:00 in, and was immediately followed by a personal rebuttal from a public official:

 

 

November 25, 2013 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

"As reported, six city councilors and the mayor are the defendant of a complaint lodged in district court against them for violating the Open Meetings Act.  Since last meeting, all seven officials were served the summons and complaint via certified mail, return service requested, but all seven officials refused to receive the summonses. 

I thought it was odd that they would officially refuse these documents, sent by the court, but then again, I thought it odd that back on May 20, 2013 they also refused to follow state law by proceeding to make decisions and deliberations outside of a properly posted open meeting after being notified of that fact.  But then again, I thought it odd that a majority of these people had refused to follow the Open Meetings Act by making decisions and deliberations by an E-mail scheme for a sewer project that cost nearly $100,000, which they admitted to back in a stipulated judgment against them in circuit court back in February. 

So what we have is a consistent pattern of ignoring the Open Meetings Act by our city hall which extends back to the Jack Byers incident, which was settled by this city for $250,000, and the implementation of the Workplace Safety Policy which prohibited this citizen from coming to a City of Ludington 'open meeting' for fourteen month.   Their refusal of accepting their summonses is indicative of their refusal to operate transparently and within the law.

Because of their reluctance to accept their process service through the mail, that leaves me the serving of process in person.  My process server is here and will give out these summonses to the present defendants in this case in person once this meeting is adjourned, going right down the line so as not to inconvenience anyone by having to stay any longer than they need to.  I will be taking photos and videos of this service, just in case these honorable councilors and mayor want to dispute the fact that they were served, or if they decide to clear out before they get served."

 

      The service of the Open Meetings Act lawsuit on the Ludington City Council; look forward to more closed meetings discussing how they plan to circumvent the laws of this state to the detriment of their citizens

 

"You may have noticed the City has demolished the building that stood at 808 East Danaher Street.  I have spoke of this building before and how the City acquired it, just to demolish it, and sell half the land to the neighbor.  The City, without a stated public purpose, used public privilege to get the property without public auction, then used public money to purchase and then demolish it, and give half of it to a private individual whose correspondence with the City Manager and the City Councilor who lives across the street illustrates an unethical deal-making that should make any moral person wince. 

Not to mention, that the building became available because the City more than doubled the taxes on it during a recent three year period, a period which saw a property across the street have its property taxes decrease by 40%.  Was this fair to the owner of 808 who saw his property value drop during that time?  Now we will have another useless vacant lot owned by the city, much like the contaminated site they purchased in 2007 on 428 Dowland Street for a fire station that will never be built.  Our City leaders seem very willing to spend our money to make vacant lots that they receive no use or taxes therefrom."   

 

"Lastly, I wish to speak briefly on the recent contract the City has signed with Utility Services Maintenance which needs to be annulled due to the fact that USM has not met the standards the City set in their request for proposal [RFP papers] for painting and maintaining the Brye water tank. 

First off, USM submitted their initial proposal back in September 2012, which remained unchanged between then and when another bidder made a proposal almost a year later, based on the USM model, with the exception that they had to figure in a second repainting of the tank on the last year of the contract.  USM by this contract signed just last month [contract] is not under any obligation to paint the tank on the tenth year, in fact it explicitly says it will do work in the eleventh year, beyond the time when the contract will expire. 

That contract says:  quote "the initial tank renovation for the Brye Road tank would start in the spring of 2014.  For all future paintings, the company will clean and overcoat/repaint the interior and/or exterior of the tank at such time as complete repainting is needed."  That is against the terms of the RFP, unlike the other bidder's proposal.  It continues:

"The interior renovation shall again be removed and replaced with epoxy in the year 2024  The exterior repainting will not exceed ten years.  The contract anniversary date will start on January 1, 2014." 

As explained elsewhere in this contract, this contract will end on December 31, 2023, meaning any work done in 2024 will have to be done through another separate overpriced contract.  This goes against what the request for proposals lays out, which says the company must provide an interior and exterior coating twice during the contract's life.  

The contract needs to be rejected and re-evaluated in a fair process, one that does not involve pre-bidding or paying for paint jobs ten years before they are undertaken-- that's not in the public's interest and ridiculous."

 

This was followed by City Officer Wallace Cain's testament of loyalty to his two masters, which was an attack against the citizen who not only believes that City Hall too often acts against the interests of the people, but also makes those views known after researching the relevant documentation.  The first master of his, the City of Ludington who employs him as a Board of Review member and a Zoning Board of Appeals member-- and the company he works as the IT Manager for, Floracraft. 

Because he likely believed I would talk out about House of Flavors seeking a tax abatement while honest citizens and businessmen take up the tax burden.  Just as I have spoken up before against the local businessmen who seek corporate welfare.  Here was my speech about the Hoffers looking for a tax abatement for their new additions.  It's not a popular position in this town of crony-politics, but it is a fair assessment of what is sought and at what cost.  David Bourgette who spoke first, also made some equally valid points against it (13:15 into the video)

 

"In reviewing the companies that have sought tax abatements or other tax breaks from the City of Ludington over the last four years, it seems to have within it a lot of businesses that have been firmly entrenched in Ludington for many years.  Floracraft, Whitehall Industries, Great Lakes Casting, Brill Manufacturing, and House of Flavors.  These companies employ many of our town's citizens in the production of various items.

The City has granted these companies tax abatements unanimously every time that they are asked for, and if they use any reasoning, it is because they don't want to upset the companies that are seeking the tax break by denying them the break.  Yet in these four years and beyond, the citizens of the community have yet to see a tax break for themselves, in fact, the City has held a couple truth in taxation hearings during this time to raise tax rates that were to be lowered automatically by Headlee, when property values were decreasing.  Water utility rates controlled by the City have jumped over 25% during that time, no rates have decreased.

It seems rather odd to me, that this City Council would be so gung-ho for offering certain companies the special benefit of tax abatement, thereby increasing the tax burden on the rest of the citizens, property owners, and other business owners of Ludington, and also be so gung-ho against offering any form of tax relief for the citizens, property owners, and other business owners of Ludington. 

For no matter what particular company fills out paperwork to beg leave of the City Council for the special favor of a tax abatement, the owners of that particular company have to know that they are not only making it more difficult for their own employees to afford living in Ludington, but they are also getting an unfair advantage over any particular competitor within the City who has the fortitude and morality to not be asking their community for what amounts to... a handout.  Receiving public assistance, while their fellow citizens can ill afford house payments, rents, and property taxes, while somehow getting by without government largesse, unlike the aforementioned businesses.

I would love to see the leaders of Floracraft, Whitehall Industries, Great Lakes Casting, Brill Manufacturing and House of Flavors come to these city council meetings to ask for tax relief across the board for everyone in this city, not just themselves.  Until that happens, Ludington City Hall should be renamed the House of Favors, in honor of their willingness to use public money for speculative 'economic development'.  I would appreciate the City Council voting against showing favoritism.  Thank you."

[Willy]

Fine reporting X. I agree, if businesses get tax breaks then the citizens should also receive them. The established businesses are extorting taxes from the people of Ludington. It would be interesting to know just how many employees of these companies actually live in Ludington. It would seem to me that if these companies receive tax breaks given by Ludingtons residents then all of the companies employees should be residents of Ludington, not outsiders.

[Willy]

Eye

I enrolled you in Mrs. Anderson's 3rd grade class. She said you should be able to catch up with the other students by spring. She thinks your posts on this forum will get to the 4th grade level soon but you'll have to try real hard.

[XLFD]

EyE,

Quit being unnecessarily provocative.  If you disagree with me or Willy, why don't you add your own two cents by completing this thought:  "I believe Bob Neal (house of Flavors), James Scatena (Floracraft), etc. need tax breaks and I deserve to have my taxes raised because..."

[XLFD]

If I cede you the arguable point that this tax abatement to HOF helps the community retain jobs, then a legitimate inference from that point is that HOF would move some (or all) of its manufacturing elsewhere, because it feels the normal taxes are unreasonably high here. 

So then HOF feels that the normal tax burden is unreasonably high here, so they apply to get this abatement to lessen their burden.  They know, somewhere in the logical parts of their mind, that this only makes the rest of the community more burdened in an area where they already consider the tax burden too high for them to pay without a tax abatement.  This contradicts the assumption that HOF is  getting this tax break out of its wish to help the community.

If HOF has some problems with certain taxes that are unfairly assessed against them, I am on their side.  But this is a tax abatement which exempts them from taxes that other businesses and individuals have to pay in the normal course of events.  I don't think it's very moral for a public entity (or business) to give public money effectively to specific private companies at the expense of everyone else, without an overriding public interest.

[AQUAMAN]

The main problem to start with here is that the same type of favoritism of select companies are getting repeated tax breaks over and over again. Add to that, the fact most don't prove that more employees, or the amount they predict, are truly hired after the expansion is completed. Finally, other non-favored type companies are denied tax abatements, simply because the good ole boys at city hall don't favor them, and this is pretty shady, and also lacks objectivity.

[XLFD]

It's one thing to offer a tax break to a company locating their business into this area-- this is why I didn't bring up the tax abatement the City of Ludington passed for Duna USA (out on Sixth Street)-- and to offer one to an established company that is purchasing new equipment or real property. 

Philosophically, I don't believe in either one , but I can see justification for the former when other places do it, see none other than opportunism and greed for the latter.  This is one issue Tom Tyron, who comes to most meetings, sitting in the front near the podium, and I have opposite views on.  He has a defense of it right after my statement which is  a good counter to my argument.  But it's such a skewed outlook of income distribution, a dysfunctional, socialistic brand of supply side economics, where you rob from the poor to give to the rich.